STI-1499 A New Hope
Well that went well. Lulz
First OP, my bad. Apparently paragraph spaces don’t work? And obviously the 2 links failed as well
<redundant>
Next time post information like this the day before the stock jumps 158%.
Thanks.
“animosity towards good news around here”
lol
I figure we would all be on board with anything that gets us back to the stadium this fall.
you would be sadly mistaken...there is incredible division among the ranks. There is only one good...just ask.
I'm pretty sure if there was a vaccine, or even better, a cure, you would get 99.99999% of the people on this board together for an awesome POSBANG.
True and guaranteed -- all of us will be pure champions of good news ... so long as that news is well supported.
As for this biologic treatment, if it is as effective as claimed, it will be great news for some patients in the worst situations. We should be somewhat cautious about that upside as it is difficult to confirm given that there is no peer-reviewed literature yet, only press leaks to tech review URLs/blogs.
For now, let's assume that Sorrento Therapeutics is not exaggerating anything about what they've developed. As a biologic, rather than a small molecule, it will probably have these downsides:
- likely impossible to scale to the world, or even the national, population
- EXPEEEENSIVE
- will have low stability and patients may need their providers to administer it on multiple occasions
- as with perhaps the majority of biologics, liable to be associated with autoimmune, leukemic, and/or immune suppressive adverse effects
Of course, that's the bad news. The good news is that if the press is correct, it will be a luxury to have a silver bullet for those who can find and afford it. Now, we need only wait for the supporting literature to find out.
/resident MGo medical doctor and biochemist
Would $1200 per person cover the cost? If so, I know an entity that can afford it.
It's not a bad joke, but the federal government is unlikely to have the will to take this one on. Biologics tend to cost no less than tens of thousands of dollars per year (per person, of course), and those with unique development demands - and the COVID-19 story is arguably one - can cost more than $20,000 *per injection*. And even if they had the will to take on this debt, as mentioned, patients are likely to need plural injections. And even if the political will persisted, these are not medicines that can be produced at national scale. And, of course, it still hasn't been peer-reviewed to be effective, let alone peer-reviewed to be safe.
So it's a nice idea. And may yet prove itself a wonderful tool in our toolbelt. But a biologic like this cannot be our main strategy. Agents like this can't reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infectivity rate below 1.0 and end the pandemic, but they can turn the tide for a modest number of sickest patients in intensive care.
Keep rooting for your vaccine developers.
Or Russia could just release the antigens they've obviously given Trump already.
What drives the expense? Is it really the production cost or are those numbers to fund R&D and yield a profit?
It’s literally thousands on dollars to manufacture a gram. Then add on R&D and profit margin
Thank you, very informative
#teamscience ?
This is why you come to MGoBlog
I used to think that too...the politics has brought out the worst kind of ugly
Agreed. Any type of cure seems to be pretty politically neutral. I can't think of a "side" that does not want a cure.
I for one visit this board for the rational discussion where everyone can voice their opinions without fear of retribution, and everyone can agree to disagree on a wide range of topics.
STI-1499: A New Hope
That's a riveting movie title possibility.
Snark aside, I'll let someone with more biomedical credentials than me comment on its potential. I have nothing further to offer. Except hope.
I'm going to ask my friend who runs an oncology lab at NW* about this. Given that the article indicates that the antibody follows similar pathways as cancer-fighting antibodies, I figure he's pretty well qualified to comment on what limited information has been shared about STI-1499.
*He was actually recruited from Yale (where he earned his MD and PhD) to start up and run this lab at NW, so he knows a thing or two. One of the smartest people I know. He was actually recruited with his wife as a package deal, who is the chief of one of the oncology departments.
We get it your friend is fucking amazing and we're all troglodytes in comparison!
/s
I wouldn't say "amazing." According to the post it said he knows a "thing or two." That seems pretty limiting to me.
I was going to group myself with the trogs, but I see you're being sarcastic.
Troglodyte out.
I also have a friend who knows a thing or two about this stuff. I asked him about Sorrento and he actually laughed out loud. Said that they've got quite a history of financial and legal problems. That's not to say that they haven't found a good candidate for an antiviral antibody drug against Covid, but there's a long way to know before it pans out or not. Also, nothing yet about this so-called breakthrough discovery on STAT which is the go-to pharmaceutical industry news site. So, all-in-all, a big grain of salt is in order.
If lab tests were the barometer for success, then we would have already conquered most diseases. Unfortunately, success in the lab does not often mean success working inside humans. But it is an important first step in the process (you need the successful lab tests to start testing on humans.)
No one has animosity toward good news, not sure where that refrain came from. However, there's a healthy skepticism of miracle cures that lack supporting research and data.
That's a bingo.
When I see peer reviewed, clinically supported good news I'm thrilled, not mad.
But so far 99% of the "good news" I've seen reported here is neither. It either wishful thinking, complete bullshit or both.
Yeah, I'm a bit annoyed when a company announces results like this via a press release instead of publishing the underlying data. It's still good news to hear there's at least one more candidate to evaluate in clinical trials, but they need to show their work and let people scrutinize it.
Taken at their word, in vitro neutralization is a good sign. I would analogize it to finding a QB prospect who can consistently throw a ball through a tire hanging from the backyard tree with superb accuracy from 20-25 yds.
Good prospect? Well, you need to be able to have that skill to be a successful QB. But putting an antibody that does well in vitro into the dynamic environment of a human body is like putting that QB into a game. Things get real in a hurry and then you find out if the skill translates.
The press release says they hope to make it to a Phase II trial by fall, and submit for approval by early next year. So we'll see. Better than nothing, man.
The (public) companies (like Sorrento) have a fiduciary responsibility to do a press release with material information (of which this is given their size). The process for getting these data peer reviewed and published takes a lot longer than writing a press release, hence the disconnect in timing (and including too much of the data in your press release can harm your publication timing and likelihood for acceptance for publication, as any good journal would tell you.)
The rest of what you say is dead-on.
That's where I would expect a pre-print post on bioRxiv or medRxiv while the months-long peer review process happens in parallel in a standard journal, especially for reporting in vitro data. I guess my complaint here is the press release (LINK) is completely bare of any technical data.
Compare that to Gilead's April 29 announce of the initial results from the Remdesivir clinical trial (LINK). The study design had already been made public at initiation and a summary table of the results was presented in the PR. That's a more responsible way to announce, in my opinion.
You're also comparing the approach with preclinical data versus Phase 3 data. The approaches are different in those situations as they are here. I don't know that I've ever seen a preclinical press release with any meaningful technical data.
I'm still waiting on my Cold Fusion energy!
Elisabeth Shue figured that out and carried the formula in her bra.
/The Saint
I just heard about a UK study that found patients with Covid-19 who had previously been vaccinated for the flu experienced a higher death rate than non-vaccinated patients. It was thought to be tied to the fact that the vaccine serum used canine cells and dogs commonly carry corona viruses.
That rationale makes absolutely no sense. Could the two be correlated? Absolutely. Older people get flu vaccines at higher rates and also die of COVID-19 at higher rates. Does that mean they're related? Highly doubtful and definitely not for the reasons you're describing.
Bet Calipari had something to do with it.
Ahh, I see. You are attempting to resurface the internet banned “Plandemic” conspiracy theory without mentioning the actual banned video or the discredited conspiracy theorist. Nice try!
Well, I’m pretty sure we all know which “champ” needs to be banned now.
Woof
Laboratory (in vitro) results typically never pan out in human testing. It is why only ~86% of drugs fail during the clinical trial phases. But you have to test to know.
Kinda true, kinda not. In vitro tests AND in vivo animal tests don’t pan out is more like it.
And it’s not due to how poor the tests predict, but more due to how insanely complex humans are (which can’t be effectively modeled in vitro) as well as the massive genetic diversity in humans resulting in huge efficacy and toxicity differences from person to person that are unacceptable to regulatory agencies.
These days in vitro tests are getting to where they can predict the human response far better than animal tests though
Rhesus Macaque monkeys are the closest thing to human beings so far as animal testing goes.
I thought that it was mgobloggers that were the closest to human beings?
Nope, the monkeys are closer than mgobloggers.
And they have massive issues with predicting human outcomes, particularly in the realm of nephrotoxicity and DILI
This would be great if they are able to prove it with testing but the equity markets don't believe it is a thing - markets would be up 6% if they thought this was credible.
Markets are not always right and can take time to digest news but take it with a grain of salt.
I'll take good news over bad news any and every day of the week.
Question for someone who has working knowledge on the subject: when/if a vaccine or effective antiviral treatment does get through clinical trials and is approved for mass production, how quickly do we realistically expect it to get out to hundreds of millions of people living in this country? Never mind the billions around the world. I know not everyone will actually get a chance to get the vaccine, but on a level of the flu vaccine distribution, how long would you say it takes to get ramped up to that volume of supply?
I have no working knowledge on this subject, but this seems like it could take months (maybe more?) to even just get enough for some of the population, and I imagine the first rounds are all going to those working in the medical field (as they should) and those deemed to be working in essential or critical roles. But for anyone who's worked in medical distribution, I'm curious what their thoughts are on a timeline for getting it out to the masses even if we find a working solution.
I don't have an answer for you, but I do believe that you could look up the back story on the H1N1 response and how quickly they were able to blend that into the seasonal flu shots. As we've seen with testing, getting to millions of cases is hard. (Then again, I'm sure there will be a vocal portion of the population that will refuse a vaccine because it has an agenda or something.)
My company had an expert infectious disease expert talk to us (we're in the med-health business) and he said that we're going to need to be patient to make sure efficacy is fully tested and there's time to build up supply safely. He assumes that any initial vaccine (he's optimistic) will start by being given to essential workers first before mass distribution.
Really depends who you ask/believe. JNJ has indicated the ability to produce >1B doses in 2021 (should they successfully develop a vaccine). However, how many people that treats is dependent on how long immunity from the vaccine lasts. Most of the non-fatal coronaviruses (i.e. common colds) have antibodies that last ~6mo. SARS1 and MERS antibodies were detected in humans >2yrs post-infection, but it is not clear if in sufficient amounts to block a re-infection. If immunity = 6mo, then would likely require bi-annual vaccination. There's also some thought that a person's initial covid infection would be the most severe, if true, some may opt to forego a vaccine, particularly if it is hastily brought to market.
Others are more skeptical of the timeline, saying 18-24 months at minimum, but likely to be longer. Others point to prior vaccines for novel diseases that took 5-10yrs to produce.
Personally, given we have corona vaccines for animals and were previously working on them for SARS1/MERS, I'd hope the timeline is closer to what JNJ says vs. the others. There's at least some foundational building blocks to work off of and coronas are fairly simple with low mutagenic properties. Fingers crossed.
Anything to bring the world back to normal would be appreciated...
Hopefully our scientists find something soon.
Drugs wear off?